======================== ROUND 142, Final Summary ======================== As of 2000-07-23 14:17:37 GMT, Aron Wall was the only eligible member remaining. Therefore, Round 142 is over and Aron Wall shall be the Judge for the next round. As represented below, Christian accrued the most style points and shall be Wizard for the next round. STYLE & RESULTS Member Style Results ------------------------------------------------ Christian R. Leonhard +4.75 WIZARD Orjan Johansen +3.00 Ronald Kunne +1.50 Aron Wall -1.50 JUDGE Jeremy Selengut +1.75 RULE SUMMARY Rule Author Validity Style ------------------------------------------------ 142:1 Christian R. Leonhard VALID +2.75 142:1U1 Orjan Johansen UNSUCCESSFUL +0.50 142:1U2 Ronald Kunne UNSUCCESSFUL +1.50 142:2 Orjan Johansen VALID +0.50 142:3 Aron Wall VALID -1.50 142:4 Jeremy Selengut INVALID* +1.75 142:5 Orjan Johansen INVALID** +2.00 142:6 Christian R. Leonhard INVALID** +2.00 * This rule was originally judged VALID, but its validity was changed to INVALID by the overrule proposal 142:A. ** This rule was originally judged VALID, but its validity was changed to INVALID by the overrule proposal 142:B. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 142:1 is VALID. It does not contradict the ROs or itself. That's all it needs to do. For future reference, and to explain my Style allocation, Christian's rule has 42 letters. Style is +2.75 for: - Excellent (but creative) restriction on future rules - The even more excellent use of 42 in the rule - Daring to restrict his own rule. :) > From: "Christian R. Leonhard" > Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:18:05 -0400 > To: > Subject: 142:1 > > 142:1 >>>>>> > Each rule has the same number of letters as this one. > <<<<< > -Christian > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-07-16 14:07:27 GMT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 142:1U1 is UNSUCCESSFUL. For the duration of this round, the designation "142:1U1" may be used to refer to the rule posted by Orjan Johansen subjected as 142:1. This rule is in violation of 141:1's restriction on the number of letters and is therefore not valid. Style is +0.5 for: - Enforcing and defining self-recursion for this round. > From: Orjan Johansen > Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:41:52 +0200 (CEST) > To: Fantasy Rules Committee > Subject: 142:1 > >>>>> > Self-recursion means referring somehow to a smaller or less complicated > version of oneself. Every Rule in this Round must be self-recursive. > For example, this Rule minus its last sentence would be INVALID. >>>>> > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-07-16 14:08:31 GMT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 142:1U2 is UNSUCCESSFUL. For the duration of this round, the designation "142:1U2" may be used to refer to the rule posted by Ronald Kunne subjected as 142:1. This rule is in violation of 141:1's restriction on the number of letters and is therefore not valid. Style is +1.5 for: - Nice use of 42 - Nice math (I though I wouldn't have to use this after 8th grade) > From: Ronald Kunne > Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:46:18 +0200 (MET DST) > To: frc > Subject: 142:1 > >>>>>> > 42) A rule with number x shall be consistent with a restriction y, > if and only if x divides y. >>>>>> > > Greetings, > Ronald ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 142:2 is VALID. It has forty-two letters per 142:1. Style is +0.5 for: - A rather vague rule, notwithstanding the difficulties of using only forty-two letters. I do, however, appreciate the difficultie of paring the original down. > From: Orjan Johansen > Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:16:37 +0200 (CEST) > To: Fantasy Rules Committee > Subject: Grumble (142:2) > >>>>> > All future Rules must somehow be self-referential. >>>>> > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-07-16 14:17:37 GMT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 142:3 is VALID. For the record, it was subjected as "141:3". This rule per 142:1 has forty-two letters and is, I suppose, self-referential from its refer to "I" in the first and second words. I am introducing a concept for this round (and hopefully to be continued by other Judges) called "mootness." A valid rule may be judged moot if the Judge deems it to establish no restrictions or alteration (including rescinding) of other restrictions, or to be meaningless within the English language. Rule 142:3 is MOOT. This rule provides that "new rules restrict only rule's restrictions." I feel confident assuming that "new rules" refers to future rules. Howvere, the "only rule" refered to is compeltely unclear. I feel that the author may have intended "only rules'" in the plural, but even then the meaning is somewhat elusive. As it is written, I cannot find meaning in these words. Style is -1.5 for: - Being incomprehensible > From: Aron Wall > Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 07:57:26 -0700 > To: frc@trolltech.com > Subject: 141:3 > >>>>>> > Like I, new rules restrict only rule's restrictions. >>>>>> > > Aron Wall > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-07-16 14:57:27 GMT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 142:4 is VALID. Per 142:1, it has forty-two characters, and per 142:2, it is self-referential. I will take this opportunity to comment on Jeremy's note. I viewed 142:3 as VALID but MOOT; the effect is the same in that I consider it to have no force binding future rules. Style is +1.75 for: - Good use of forty-two letters - Interesting restriction - Delightful differentiation of symbols and strings > From: "Jeremy D. Selengut" > Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:59:59 -0400 > To: frc@trolltech.com (fantasy rules committee) > Subject: 142:4 > >>>>>> > Only this rule may pass rule two by saying "this rule." >>>>>> > > Note that I regard Aron's rule 142:3 as INVALID because it does not only > restrict other rules' restrictions, it restricts the content of other rules. > > -Jeremy > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-07-17 13:01:50 GMT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 142:5 is VALID. Per 142:1, it has forty-two letters. Per 142:2, it is self-referential. Per 142:4, it does not use the phrase "this rule". Per itself, it is very emotional. Style is +2.0 for: - A cute emoticon - The exclamation mark - A nice and creative restriction > From: Orjan Johansen > Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:18:55 +0200 (CEST) > To: Fantasy Rules Committee > Subject: 142:5 > >>>>> > I note with fear: From me on, rules are very emotional! :-( >>>>> > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-07-18 00:19:50 GMT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 142:6 is VALID. Per 142:1, it has forty-two letters. Per 142:2, it is self-referential. Per 142:4, is does not use the phrase "this rule." Per 142:5, it is very emotional (the imperative form and the "mine, all mine!" suffice to demonstrate this) Per itself, no two rules presently share the same letter, so there is no inconsistency in its own restriction. (For those of you tuning in at home, the letters used to begin valid rules up to and including this one are, in order: E,A,L,O,I,D.) I have assumed in my interpretation that the imperative "Do" is directed at all valid rules, past and future. This does /seem/ to limit the round to a maximum of twenty-six valid rules :) Style is +2.0 for: - Wonderful restriction - The "mine, all mine!" refrain - The imperative form - Using a numeral to get around the letter restriction > From: "Christian R. Leonhard" > Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:34:17 -0400 > To: > Subject: 142:6 > > 142:6 >>>>>> > Do as I do in not sharing a 1st letter. 'D' is mine, all mine! > <<<<< > -Christian > > -- > Rule Date: 2000-07-18 02:39:14 GMT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jared: I hereby recant my statement that 142:3 should be considered INVALID. I bow to the logic of others that the rule is both comprehensible, VALID and reasonable. I hereby propose (142:A) that the ruling on 142:4 (my rule) be changed to INVALID because it is inconsistent with 142:3. I vote FOR this proposal. Furthermore, I agree with Anton that the term you coined, "MOOTness," is itself moot and has no bearing on the FRC. Ambiguous rules which are not inconsistent with previous rules, themselves or the R.O.s are VALID and nothing more. Future rules must be consistent with this VALID rule and if they cannot (logically) be so, then all future rules will be necessarily INVALID. Furthermore, if an ambiguous VALID rule has multiple consistent interpretations then future rules may be VALID if they are consistent with at least one of these interpretations even if they are inconsistent with one or more of these interpretations at the same time -- this has the effect of limiting the set of consistent interpretations with which subsequent rules must be consistent. -Jeremy -- Rule Date: 2000-07-18 14:19:18 GMT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposal 142:A has passed with 1 vote cast in favor and 0 cast against. 100 percent of votes were in favor, and a two-thirds majority in favor was necessary for adoption. 142:4 is now to be considered INVALID due to conflict with 142:3. Nothing further has been effected by the passage of this proposal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, the judge has considered my objections, and does not feel they warrant a change of heart. Fair enough; but I still contend that if a rule is declared valid, and has a reasonable interpretation, then it is perverse to prefer instead to assign it a meaningless one. Thus I propose 142:B >>>>>> That rules 142:5 and 142:6 be declared INVALID. >>>>>> (For I believe that they contradict the only sensible interpretation of 142:3.) Naturally, I vote FOR this proposal. Equally naturally in the circumstances, I vote FOR 142:A. While the judge feels that "It seems patently unfair to penalize these rules and their submitters by reversing my judgement regarding mootness on a previous rule", I would note that both 142:5 and 142:6 were submitted after objections were raised; it would have been easy enough to err on the side of caution and ensure that any rules obeyed 142:3. Further, even if this were not the case, I think in general that players - while aided by the judge's ruling - should always consider the possibility of rejudgements, if they seem plausible. The argument that it is too late to change after another rule is submitted just does not wash, to my mind. Of course it can be inconvenient, but in many rounds this policy would make it practically impossible ever to change a dodgy ruling, due to the pace of rule submissions. Changing the ruling so soon after it was made - especially at such an early stage in the first week - would not greatly inconvenience anyone, as eligibility considerations are not yet pressing. And it has certainly been done in the past; stare decisis is certainly not a pre-requisite for "consistency and the ability to continue with the round". The judge should not be unduly concerned that "I made that differentiation and I must now live with it". Most of us have made dodgier calls in the past; it is certainly no weakness in a judge to have a change of heart! Of course, the judge is correct to note that 142:A (and my own proposal) do not mandate a change in his interpretation. But I would point out, first, that it would be undesirable to set in stone the interpretation of a rule by decree (someone may yet reveal to us a reasonable alternative interpretation; it has happened often enough in the past), and second that it is easy enough for me to continue submitting proposals for each judgement that does not take into account the implications of 142:3... :-) Best Wishes, Anton -- Rule Date: 2000-07-19 11:41:25 GMT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- First, an amendment. 142:A passed 2-0, with the same 100% vote in favor (Anton also voted in favor). Proposal 142:B has passed with 1 vote cast in favor and 0 cast against. 100 percent of votes were in favor, and a two-thirds majority in favor was necessary for adoption. 142:5 and :6 are now to be considered INVALID. Nothing further has been effected by the passage of this proposal. (I have elected not to vote for or against these proposals, rather to let the remainder of the FRC decide matters as they see fit.) / Jared Sunshine ut dixi ita fiat [ t e m p u s f u g i t ]